2nd year review

[moretolife]

at last we got our 2nd year review done...phew....arrived yesterday but didnt really get a chance to read it all properly till about half hour ago...we were slightly worried as we had asked for loads of increases....
petrol ...housekeeping....and we asked for house and dog insurance to be included as it wasnt on original I and E...we had enough of an increase in salary in last year to cover these so wasnt looking for any payment variation......
not only did the IP grant all the increases asked for....they even allowed us 50.00 more than we asked for in the housekeeping..we had asked for 50..00 increase and were allowed 100.00....wow....plus there is still 73.00 excess left in budget....

i think this has been done as we also included details of the decrease that may occur later this year...i am self employed and my income will go down after november....but we are more than delighted with this extremely fair and encouraging review...have sent off a thank you letter to our IP..
we are just living in hope now that OH wont get made redundant....because that would upset the calm big time.!!LOL

[Adam Davies]

Hi
It's good to read of a positive outcome
Regards

[orchid5]

Hi moretolife, i have recently gone through the 2nd year review and was very pleasantly surprised as no increase despite me having had a pay rise but having had a hike of £100 in mortgage and other expenditure that about wiped out my rise, hey ho but at least another year of peace of mind.

15 down, 45 to go.

[moretolife]

thats good news orchid...perhaps with the evident rise in life expenses IPs are allowing us some leeway...i was very pleasantly surprised....hope others can report similar in their coming reviews....
being self employed i was able to present all the future salary predictions and had also included a confirmation re my decrease so felt we had presented a good case...but still...i know by reading other posts that reviews can often be a tough time...

[MelanieGiles]

How pleasant to read a report of a sensible annual review for a change, rather than some of the horror stories we regularly read about on the forum.

Now the majority of Supervisor fees are based on a percentage of realisations rather than fixed costs, I do hope that we do not see an alarming trend of people being squeezed every year to pay more.

[caraf]

Brilliant News
I am due our first review in December and starting to get a little nervous.
Which company ar you both with ? who are you IP's ?
Cheers
carol
x

[moretolife]

caraf..i am with McCambridge Duffy and my IP is judy mooney....our first IP was john young....hope all goes well with your review....

[David Mond]

Great news - I hope though that your IP has not gone against the CCCS guidelines as he might have problems in the fulture in gettings such amouts through - anyway be thankful for small mercies.

[Viki.W]

Why is that David?

[David Mond]

In proposing an IVA the Expenditure must meet CCCS guidelines as creditors (in the main) will only accept such amounts (which can be very tight). If they notice (and they probably won't) that an IP has allowed on a yearly review a higher amount that the guidelines AND find out about it they could be difficult in voting in favour of that IP's future proposals put forward.

[MelanieGiles]

Annual reviews should be based on the proper review by an IP of their clients income and expenditure, and not a set of guidelines which bear little relation to the true cost of living or a client's individual circumstances.

I do not apply CCCS guidelines in my reviews, and continue to deliver pledged returns in over 90% of my cases in an industry which continues to quote failure rates of 30-40%. I do accpet, however, that other IPs and firms have differing policies, and in no way wish to assert that my views are the right ones.

[David Mond]

Interesting point though - so to get an IVA through you adopt the CCCS guidelines but when it comes to a review Annual or earlier you adopt different ones - how does this affect dividends to creditors or presumably the client has had substantial rises in salary to keep pledged divi rates on track?

[Adam Davies]

Hi
We must remember that the CCCS guidelines are just that "guidelines".If the originally quoted allowance are clearly not enough when the annual review comes along then hats off to any IP who has the strengh to allow for actual expenses.
I have a feeling,and may be wrong,that creditors take very little notice of the annual report sent in by the IP.
As long as the original dividend is realised then that should be acceptable.There are too many stories on this forum of failed or failing IVAs,and in these cases no one wins,least of all the debtor
Regards

[David Mond]

However if the Annual Review indicates that a reduction is in order then a Variation meeting would have to be held ONLY IF the original dividend promised is reduced. If dividend on track then no variation meeting needed.

[MelanieGiles]

Exactly. I have been an IP doing consumer debt IVAs for many years, and do not need creditors, the CCCS or the BBA to provide me with guidelines as to what a sensible and reasonable set of expenditures actually are.

We use the CCCS guidelines when presenting IVAs because this is what creditors require, and it is better to explain to a client at the outset that their expenditure will be dictated by this matrix than to provide nasty suprises on the day of the creditors meeting.

At the time of annual reviews, I will increase my clients payments if I feel this is justifed and affordable. A full income and expenditure account is enclosed with all my reports, detailing the previous year's figures, and the current acceptable levels - and I have never once had a creditor query my judgement. Indeed following audits on my practice by two of the major voting representatives of late, they concur with this strategy to ensure the pledged return is actually delivered.

In my humble opinion, there are far too many IVAs failing due to harsh expenditure allowances from the outset, which then seem to be followed on by some IPs.